Through an impeachment notice in the Lok Sabha against a high court judge over what essentially was a judicial disagreement in Tamil Nadu, the opposition INDIA bloc weaponised a sparingly-used constitutional tool to serve political ends. While on a single-judge bench of the Madras High Court, Justice G R Swaminathan recently allowed a PIL directing the Subramaniya Swamy temple at Madurai’s Thiruparankundram hill to light an annual lamp at a deepathoon (stone lamp pillar) adjacent a hill-top dargah. Observing that the temple was duty-bound to do so, the judge ruled that lighting the lamp there would not encroach upon the rights of the dargah or the Muslim community. Since the temple authorities refused to comply, the petitioners filed a contempt petition. The judge then allowed the petitioners to go to the deepathoon themselves with security cover from central paramilitary forces to light the lamp. The DMK government, however, blocked it and approached the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the matter. Yet, the opposition jumped the gun.
Impeachment provisions under Article 217 of the Constitution, read with Article 124, are special tools that deliberately set a high bar for sacking judges in the higher judiciary. Both require rigorous proof of misbehaviour or incapacity, as also a special majority in parliament. Besides, the presiding officer, who is the gatekeeper, “may either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same” even it has the requisite signatures. The grounds for impeachment of Justice Swaminathan include “serious questions” regarding impartiality and transparency; favouring a particular senior counsel and advocates from a particular community; and flouting secular principles. His supporters, however, argue that the charges not only gloss over his erudition and high disposal rate of cases, but also progressive verdicts like affirming the rights of transgender persons and recognising civil unions of same-sex couples.
Judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Browbeating it to align with the executive goes against the spirit of democracy. The Constitution provides various appellate mechanisms to challenge judicial decisions. The state government ought to have waited for the Supreme Court to take a call and bring quietus to the matter. Contesting judicial decisions is a legitimate right, but seeking impeachment is hardly the way to go about it.